Speaking with a forked tongue: diplomatic correspondence between China and Japan, 238-608 A.D.

• Author: Zhenping, Wang

China designed the mutually acceptable format for diplomatic correspondence among Asian countries. Although seemingly an embodiment of a China-centered world order, such correspondence was in fact utilized by both China and other Asian countries as a tool to achieve their respective goals at home or abroad. The exchange of diplomatic correspondence was therefore a reciprocal procedure.

Diplomatic correspondence was an expedient tool for communication among state rulers in the premodern East Asian world-order centered on China. It allowed them to gather intelligence, settle disputes, and maintain good relations in peace-time, and to form alliances or neutralize enemies in eras of war or tension. States also utilized this tool for domestic purposes.(1) Thus when China was in political division, each regional warlord desired foreign recognition to portray himself as the legitimate "Son of Heaven"; hence he encouraged "barbarian" rulers to dispatch tribute-bearing envoys and to observe proper honorific forms of address in state letters. On the other hand, contenders for power within those foreign states sought recognition from the Son of Heaven to gain military aid and political legitimacy over rivals, and thus facilitate national unification or consolidation.(2)

Like Greek or Latin in the ancient or medieval West, literary Chinese was the cultural and diplomatic lingua franca of East Asia.(3) As Chinese culture spread to neighboring lands such as Japan,(4) Paekche,(5) Silla,(6) Koguryo,(7) Tibet,(8) Turkestan,(9) Karakhoja [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED],(10) and Nao-chao [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED],(11) state letters naturally were drafted in the language that embodied and bolstered Sinocentric cosmology. To that end, successive Chinese dynasties developed complex rules for composing diplomatic correspondence binding both for China and its neighbors. These rules governed, among other things, honorific forms, styles (especially verb and noun usage), types of paper and letter-cases, and the appellations of sender and addressee - all to clarify status distinctions between the Chinese emperor and foreign rulers. The strict enforcement of these rules allowed the Chinese dynasty to convey messages not only in the contents of a letter, but also in every detail of form. China implemented its geo-political strategy by having foreign envoys submit such letters, which, while superficially full of flattery, still symbolically recognized China's suzerainty and international hegemonic standing. Moreover, this was mutually beneficial; the rules did not serve Chinese interest alone. As we shall see, in the case of Japan this symbolic submission to China stemmed from domestic needs and changed accordingly over time. In the third century Japan pledged loyalty to China, to gain support in unifying the country; by the seventh century it maintained a seemingly subordinate profile in order to keep official channels of contact open and sustain the inflow of advanced Chinese culture and institutions.

Diplomatic correspondence can be classified into three major groups according to forms of address, which served as the sender's appraisal of his relative standing vis-a-vis the addressee. First, in writing to a strong rival, a hostile state, or a state that was only occasionally within the Chinese political orbit, the Chinese court addressed the ruler by his native designation, such as "Shan-yu" [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] for the Hsiung-nu [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] ruler during the Han, or "Qaghan" [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] for the Turkic ruler during the Sui, but did not mention his personal name or call him a "subject" of China. These rulers used this same form of address for themselves when writing to China. But they had to call their Chinese counterpart "emperor" in order to ensure Chinese acceptance of their state letters.(12) Second, a foreign ruler who had surrendered to China might use his native designation and refer to himself as a "subject";(13) if the Chinese court wished to keep him at arms' length, it would likewise call him a "subject" but would not mention his personal name, thus indicating a political distance. This was often the case with rulers of troublesome nomads, who were deemed unlikely to be sinicized. Third, a ruler who had formally established a sovereign-vassal relationship with the Son of Heaven submitted letters almost identical to the memorials (piao [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED]) of Chinese court officials, a practice known as "presenting a tributary memorial and calling oneself `subject"' [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] in which the foreign ruler signed with his personal name.(14) Chinese diplomatic letters to such a ruler assumed the same form as official documents addressed domestically from superior to inferior. This duality expressed the inclusive universality of the Chinese-dominated world-order, for "outer subject" and inner officials were treated with the same intimacy. But if either the foreign ruler's personal name or "subject" appellation disappeared in state letters sent from or to China, this showed that the political relationship was deteriorating. Thus, forms of address conveyed subtle diplomatic messages. Both China and its neighbors took great care to ensure that state letters used these proper forms of address and signature. For China, this told the foreign ruler about his proper place in the sinocentric world-order; for the foreign ruler, this guaranteed acceptance of his letters and increased the chances of achieving diplomatic goals.

DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN CHINA AND WO

FROM THE THREE KINGDOMS PERIOD THROUGH THE

NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN DYNASTIES

Contacts between China and ancient Japan (known as "Wo" [Japanese: Wa]) in traditional Chinese sources can be traced back to the third century B.C., when leaders of small principalities on the Japanese archipelago sent representatives to contact Chinese authorities in the northern Korean peninsula.(15) The earliest surviving diplomatic correspondence between China and Wo, however, is to be found more than five hundred years later in the San kuo chih. This is a "document of investiture" (chih-shu [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED]) issued by the Wei court (220-65) in 238 to Himiko [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] the female ruler of Wo. The document preserves revealing examples of how carefully the Wei court employed the appropriate form of address for the Wo ruler and how meticulously it worded the document to reflect the nature of the Wei-Wo relationships. It reads as follows:

Document of Investiture issued to the Pro-Wei Queen of Wo, Himiko.

The governor of Tai-fang(16) [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] Liu Hsia [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] has sent a messenger to accompany your Grand Master, Nashome [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] and the Vice-ambassador, Toji Gori [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] to the Wei capital]. They have arrived here and presented your gifts: four male slaves and six female slaves, along with two pieces of patterned cloth, each twenty feet in length.

Although living far away [from China], you have sent an envoy to pay tribute. [This action shows) your loyalty and filial piety [toward me]. I am very fond of you. Now I confer upon you the title "Pro-Wei Queen." A gold seal with purple ribbon has been encased and entrusted to the governor of Tai-fang, who will grant it to you temporarily. [By so doing, I wish] you to rule your people in peace and to endeavor to be devoted and obedient [to me].

Your ambassador Nashome and [Vice-ambassador] Gori came from afar and must have had a fatiguing' journey. I have therefore appointed him the "Shuai-shan Colonel" [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] and Gori, the "Shuai-shan Commandant" [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED]. I have also bestowed upon them the silver seals with blue ribbon, granted them audience in appreciation of their visit, and sent them home with gifts. The gifts are: five pieces of crimson brocade with dragon designs; ten pieces of crimson tapestry with dappled pattern; fifty lengths of bluish-red fabric; and fifty lengths of dark blue fabric. These are in return for your tributary goods. As special gifts, I bestow upon you three pieces of blue brocade with interwoven characters, five pieces of tapestry with delicate floral designs, fifty lengths of white silk, eight taels of gold, two swords five feet long, one hundred bronze mirrors, and fifty catties each of jade and of red beads. All these things are sealed in boxes and entrusted to Nashome and Gori.

When they arrive and you acknowledge their receipt, you may exhibit all of them to your countrymen, and let them know that these gifts are bestowed upon you at your request, and that my country supports you.(17)

Of great interest is the fact that the Wei court used the "document of investiture" as the means for communication with Wo. A "document of investiture" was one of the official documents(18) that the Chinese court used for appointing or removing the nine chamberlains (chiu-ch'ing [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED]) and officials in the metropolitan area.(19) It was not as prestigious as the "official writ" (ts'e-shu [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED]) which was used for assignments of the three dukes (san-kung [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED]) and the rulers of prince-doms and marquisates.(20) Using a "document of investiture," not in "official writ," to inform Himiko of her appointment, the Wei court sent a diplomatic message: as the "Pro-Wei Queen of Wo," Himiko was in a lower status compared to the Chinese princes and marquises in the Wei officialdom.(21)

The appellation "Pro-Wei Queen of Wo, Himiko" also deserves attention. A form of address for the Wo ruler, it consists of the title Queen of such and such a country" and the personal name of the titleholder. This form of address often appears in Chinese state letters to "outer subjects," and is a means to manifest Himiko's subordinate status to...